... the 2 °C scenarios that define that path seem so optimistic and detached from current political realities that they verge on the farcical...
...“Nobody dares say it’s impossible,” says Oliver Geden, head of the European Union Research Division at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin. “Everybody is sort of underwriting the 2-degree cheque, but scientists have to think about the credibility of climate science.”
...Models that have these negative emissions really do let you continue to party on now, because you have these options later,” says John Reilly, co-director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge.
In the pay-later approach, most models rely on a combination of bioenergy and CCS...
but neither bioenergy nor CCS has been demonstrated on anywhere near the scales imagined by the models...
...when researchers drafted the assessment’s chapter on emissions scenarios and costs, he says, they included clear statements about the difficulty of achieving the 2 °C goal. But the governments — led by the EU and a bloc of developing countries — pushed for a more optimistic assessment in the final IPCC report. “We got a lot of pushback, and the text basically got mangled,” Victor says.
...“The models have taught us that with unrealistic assumptions anything is possible, and with realistic assumptions it will be very hard to cut emissions to meet goals like 2 degrees,” Victor says.
[Do adults tasked with saving the world really have to be told by scientists that if they are totally unrealistic, they can make models do anything??!!]
“That’s an important result because it forces — or should force — some sobriety about what can be achieved.”
...without collective and aggressive action by all countries, costs invariably increase, and the chance of hitting the 2 °C goal plummets...
...As it stands, the world is on a path to nearly 3 °C of warming by the end of the century, and even that assumes substantial emissions reductions in the future [as well as the magical fairy dust of massive levels of CSS]. If nations do not go beyond their Paris pledges, the world could be on track to use up its 2 °C carbon budget as early as 2032...
of the 400 scenarios that have a 50% or better chance of meeting the 2 °C target, 344 of them assume the large-scale uptake of negative emissions technologies and, in the 56 scenarios that do not, global emissions peak around 2010, which, as he notes, is contrary to the historical data.
"10 billion tonnes a year of carbon sequestration? We don't do anything on this planet on that scale. We don't manufacture food on that scale, we don't mine iron ore on that scale. We don't even produce coal, oil or gas on that scale. Iron ore is below a billion tonnes a year! How are we going to create a technology, from scratch, a highly complicated technology, to the tune of 10 billion tonnes a year in the next 10 years?"
shortonoil wrote:As it stands, the world is on a path to reach the end of the fossil fuels age long before the end of the century. World petroleum reserves are now over 85% depleted, and oil is $40/ barrel; a price level that spells certain doom for the industry within a decade. Nation states will be hard pressed to supply basic necessities, like food, medical care, and housing for their populations. The requirements of immediate survival will trump any futuristic effects that might come about because of climate change. Nothing will be done because no one will have the means to do it!
dohboi wrote:http://www.nature.com/news/is-the-2-c-world-a-fantasy-1.18868
Countries have pledged to limit global warming to 2 °C, and climate models say that is still possible. But only with heroic — and unlikely — efforts.
Plantagenet wrote:dohboi wrote:http://www.nature.com/news/is-the-2-c-world-a-fantasy-1.18868
Countries have pledged to limit global warming to 2 °C, and climate models say that is still possible. But only with heroic — and unlikely — efforts.
Yup. The Paris Conference COP21 is a farce. They aren't going to reduce CO2 emissions----they are signing a treaty to INCREASE CO2 emissions. And its all Obama's fault.
The Bali agreement scheduled for signing at Copenhagen in 2009 would've reduced CO2 emissions, but Obama mucked it up by insulting the Chinese premier, bringing the conference to the edge of collapse. Now the whole idea of reducing CO2 emissions has been abandoned, to be replaced with a new kind of treaty based on the fantasy of keeping global T increases below 2° C. And how do we do that? By magic----Paris is going to let CO2 emissions rise while pretending it is stopping global warming.
Its a total farce. Cheers!
Republicans seek to strangle Paris climate pact
The simultaneous climate and budget deadlines give the GOP a tool to derail a legacy-defining pact for the president.
Call it the climate cliff.
On Dec. 11, Obama administration diplomats will be in Paris working to clinch a global climate deal that will hinge on whether they can back up a pledge to provide billions of dollars to help poor countries deal with climate change. That same day, Republicans back in Washington will be trying to hold that money hostage with a government shutdown hanging in the balance.
“We want to make sure that any of these countries that think they’re going to have a check to cash because of an agreement that the president may make in Paris — that they shouldn’t cash the check just yet," Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said of Republicans' strategy.
Congress must pass a new spending bill by Dec. 11, when a stopgap measure expires. The simultaneous deadlines on each side of the Atlantic Ocean give Republicans a tool to derail a legacy-defining pact for the president and score a rare victory on climate policy. They also significantly raise the stakes in this year's game of shutdown chicken.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/p ... z3suBIXbT6
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 83 guests